- (1.) THIS order of mine Will dispose of Civil Revisions No. 2139 and 2140 of 1980.
(2.) THESE are tenant's revisions. Nanu Mal, respondent filed petition against, his tenant (petitioner herein) for his ejectment from two shops on the ground of non-payment of rent with effect from 1. 11. 1972 to 30 11. 1973. According to the landlord, one shop was let out for Rs. 150/- p. m. and the other for Rs. 72/- p. m. Ejectment petition which was filed on 12. 12. 1973 was dismissed on 3. 11. 1976 by the S. D. O. (Civil) exercising the powers of Rent Controller under the Act. The Rent Controller found that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant and, therefore, Nanu Mal was not entitled to file ejectment petition. This finding was given on the basis of the plea taken by the tenant in the written statement that the shops were let out to him by Lachhman Das son of Nanu Mal. The order of the Rent Controller was challenged before the Appellate Authority and by the impugned order, the appeal of the landlord was allowed and in consequence thereof the order of ejectment was passed against the tenant. Tenant has preferred these two civil revisions i. e. Civil Revisions No. 2139 and 2140 of 1980 in this Court.
(3.) MR. Arun Nehra Advocate, counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions :- ( i) that the landlord has failed to prove his title to the property. According to him in the municipal records, Ex. D-1 and D-2, Lachhman Dass is recorded as owner; (ii) that Nanu Mal made admission in some judicial proceedings in the year 1961 that in family settlement, he had given alt the property to his sons. From this admission, Mr. Nehra wanted me to infer that these shops had fallen to the share of Lachhman Dass and, therefore, Nanu Mal was not competent to eject him; (iii) that the objection is barred under Section 14 of the Act which provides for summarily rejection of a petition under Section 13 of the Act on the ground that issues in these proceedings have been finally decided in the other proceedings; (iv) finally, he argued that the Appellate Court ought to have allowed the petitioner to produce additional evidence for which he made application. ;